Player Convenience VS Game Depth

[Lux_Rayna]

Game depth includes the world around you, that even means waiting for an airship ride....

Except when the airship ride isn't a ride, but a half-assed cutscene of a ship taking off. Then its just inconvenient.

[Rokien]

That even means riding on the airship even for 5 minutes and seeing the world pass below you, even if it is a low-poly model of the continent, it still feels breathtaking.

Yep, it adds to the game depth. HECK THEY CAN EVEN DO WHAT TERA DID. Ride around a bit then go through a teleporter deal. Something other than HEY YOUR HERE!

[Jinko]

Hard to say I like both, can't I have my cake and eat it too ?

[Gramul]

When you can just teleport anywhere, why bother with 5 minute airship rides?

Few people even bother with the ship.

Hard to say I like both, can't I have my cake and eat it too ?

It's more of an either or situation. More referring to the time and commitment required.
You can have different situations favoring different levels of commitment, but the question is focused on which you prefer more.

[Jinko]

I always use the airships, Anima is worth more than anything in Erozea, although Hamlet may have changed that.

[Gramul]

I always use the airships, Anima is worth more than anything in Erozea, although Hamlet may have changed that.

But would you bother with a 5 minute cut-scene?

[Jinko]

But would you bother with a 5 minute cut-scene?

Oh I misread your post .. as you were

But to answer your question, yea I probably would if it meant saving anima, I would just go make a drink or come on here and read the forums whilst I travelled, which is what I do whilst waiting for the airship to turn up anyway.

[Viritess]

Could we possibly skip the airship "discussion" in at least one thread with the word "time" in it. I realize its a hot topic butthe Op posed a fair and civil question. Would be nice not to discuss Airship travel time .... again

[Viritess]

I will agree i like world effects to produce rarities then just time, chance and random locations.

Sometimes its even cooler to know of a cave (or series of caves), off the beaten path, that at midnight a bunch of wrights take over.

Opposed to every x hours, there is a chance 1 critter wills spawn "somewhere" in the range of 10x10 map grid blocks.

It can help anchor your adventures and help players make note of map features when your looking for caves or passages as opposed to just spawns. I'd rather search the map for places and find things then to search for things and miss out on places that might have had things in them.

When i started i was searching nearly every cave i walked by. Now i've realized unless it has a big icon on it in the map view, theres almost nothing to look at in there. Its generally 1 room, maybe a pool fo water annnd done. I take a peek still. but any sense of adventure is pretty much gone. Most caves are the same and it seems completely rare or non exsistant to find a cave that isnt a carbon copy of all the others.

[Preypacer]

Hmm, it seems I made a mistake. "Game depth" may have not been the correct term to what I was referring to. I wasn't really going on about mechanics, but more about a world that has intricacies that have an effect on how people play the game. Perhaps "world depth" would have been more appropriate.

Either way, I seem to be getting answers to my question. Some of you seem to look at the frogs example as nothing but a time sink, and I'm not saying that's wrong. I, personally, look at that as something that gives that particular piece of the game a memorable characteristic. In the pokemon example given above, I look at it like this: The pokemon you can catch change depending on the time of day. You say you don't like this because it prevents you from catching a specific pokemon the second you want it, and that is a valid complaint, but on the other hand, players will have a different experience depending on what time they first get to that part of the game, or perhaps when they traverse that area once more at a different time, they're pleasantly surprised to find a number of new pokemon they hadn't seen before. Mechanically, it can be aggravating for someone such as yourself, but aesthetically (Is that the correct word?), someone such as me finds it a novel idea. So, which of those concepts is more important to you? That's really what my question is.

I would love a scenario such as what you describe in your OP. Though your choice of words were maybe not "ideal", I got the gist of what you were asking just fine. I suspect others did as well, despite the nit-picking and fussing over specific details from some; forest for the trees and all that. You were offering up examples to convey a general idea, not a specific implementation of it. I got it loud and clear.

Anyway...

I am all for anything that gives the game world more depth and variety. To see different mobs appear at different times or have certain areas with a rare and precious mineral or resource that's also heavily guarded by dangerous, higher-level mobs would be fantastic. As long as the mainline of the gameplay is straightforward enough for people to get done what they need to get done, I have absolutely no problem with other aspects of it being driven or influenced by things like time of day, weather, etc.

FFXI did this quite a lot actually, and I always found it intriguing.

I do agree that there needn't be an "either/or" dichotomy at play. You can achieve both. The only issue would/might be that those who want those rare minerals, or want to go after that elusive mob but are set in the more "casual/convenient only" mode of play would probably raise a ruckus about it on the forums.